[CCWG-ACCT] FW: Contribution on Transparency Reforms for CCWG

Wed Oct 28 18:37:01 UTC 2015

Posting to the list for transparency in the conversation

P

Paul Rosenzweig

 <mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq at redbranchconsulting.com>
paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com 

O: +1 (202) 547-0660

M: +1 (202) 329-9650

VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739

Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066

<http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=articl
e&id=19&Itemid=9> Link to my PGP Key

From: Schaefer, Brett [mailto:Brett.Schaefer at heritage.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2015 2:26 PM
To: Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw at abenaki.wabanaki.net>; Robin Gross
(robin at ipjustice.org) <robin at ipjustice.org>
Cc: farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>; Tamir Israel
<tisrael at cippic.ca>; Padmini <pdmnbaruah at gmail.com>; Edward Morris
<egmorris1 at toast.net>; Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org>; Jyoti
<jyoti at cis-india.org>; Pranesh Prakash <pranesh at cis-india.org>; Paul
Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>; kdrazek at verisign.com;
Becky Burr <becky.burr at neustar.biz>; jordan at internetnz.net.nz; James Gannon
<james at cyberinvasion.net>; Wilson, Christopher <cwilson at 21cf.com>; Matthew
Shears (mshears at cdt.org) <mshears at cdt.org>; Lane, Rick <RLane at 21cf.com>;
Michael Karanicolas <michael at law-democracy.org>; Karel Douglas
<douglaskarel at gmail.com>
Subject: RE: [CCWG-ACCT] Contribution on Transparency Reforms for CCWG

Eric,

I'm an observer on the CCWG list, so I can't post to it. I thought the
rationale was explained in the document, but perhaps it could be clearer. 

I'm not sure I follow your number references. However, my responses to your
questions, perhaps not representative of the group, are below:

*        The problem is not the accounting or records practices, it is
access to them. As a member organization, the sole member would have had
full access to those documents upon request. The designator does not have
similar power under California law. This bullet seeks to patch that gap that
arose from the switch of models. 

*        The DIDP policies have not facilitated transparency to the extent
that many of the community feel is needed. The vast majority of DIDP
requests have been denied based on several analyses. There is insufficient
means of independent appeal as you note. The recommendation is to tighten
the exemptions and provide independent means for appealing DIDP denials. 

*        Periodic review of any policy is a good idea I would think. If
biannually is too frequent, what review cycle do you suggest? 

*        Do you disagree that ICANN should make clear to the
multi-stakeholder community its contacts with government officials, who it
has hired to represent the organization and how much compensation they
receive, and what policies it is seeking to influence? It is unclear in your
e-mail. I believe, as a corporation representing the public interest, the
public has an interest in knowing what ICANN is doing on its behalf. 

*        As was mentioned in the Q&A portion of the Dublin meetings, the
level of disclosure should be similar to that required under the Foreign
Agents Registration Act in the U.S. There are hundreds of people who comply
with this law in the U.S. I understand it can be tedious, but the number of
ICANN employees likely to be affected is fairly small and the benefits in
terms of transparency and community accountability would, in my opinion, be
significant. 

Best,

Brett 

From: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org>
[mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Eric
Brunner-Williams
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2015 1:39 PM
To: accountability-cross-community at icann.org
<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org> 
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Contribution on Transparency Reforms for CCWG

Robin, and others "of small subgroup", 

Could you point to the deficiencies in the current accounting, records and
minutes practices? Your first bullet point.

Your second bullet point contains several items. I concur with the
recommendation that something be improved in the office of the Ombudsman,
its staffing, its processes, and the recourse available when its staff and
processes fail, other than laughing it off. Your item #3.

Could you share the rationals for items #1 and #2? What is the rational for
biannual review of DIDP, and what are "best practices" in this context? Your
item #4.

Your third bullet point #3 (and the emboldened duplicate) starts out
non-controversially, putting domestic filings where the unfamiliar are
likelier to find them. But then the scope of disclosure broadens beyond
lobbying to all individuals, and all "government officials".

As a practical matter, how many members of staff do you all envision being
allowed to interact with public employees? As the scope is not limited to
employees, but extends to "representatives", how far do you all envision the
duty of record and disclose to extend? If two people speak about addresses
or protocol parameters or names, and one is an employee of some public
agency, and the other an employee of ICANN, or a "representative", does that
necessarily fall within the duty to record and disclose? 

Thanks in advance,
Eric

On 10/27/15 12:00 PM, Robin Gross wrote:

All:

Here is a link to a document intended to contribute to CCWG's work on
improving transparency at ICANN:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/11sX-zY5uie9s7zNeGz2GIRXk7BBg2xrbN_pplpJn
Nvc/edit?pli=1#
<https://docs.google.com/document/d/11sX-zY5uie9s7zNeGz2GIRXk7BBg2xrbN_pplpJ
nNvc/edit?pli=1> 

The doc is the creation of small subgroup of CCWG participants focusing on
this transparency issue.  Feedback is most welcome!

Thanks,

Robin

_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org> 
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20151028/d4dfca03/attachment.html>